add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Opinions Welcome - RAM and GPU

dogsblood
  • 3 months ago

Hello all. I have my build pretty much picked out. It's also not my first rodeo, however I am would like some opinions. PC will be used for Gaming and possibly streaming. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Fxpbhg

I am monitoring a couple options on the video card and RAM. Black Friday/Cyber Monday will probably make up my decision on the GPU if there are price reductions but would like opinions on both.

These are the current GPU's I'm looking at:

*Asus GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8 GB STRIX GAMING Advanced Video Card

*Asus GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB ROG Strix Gaming OC Video Card

*MSI GeForce RTX 2080 8 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card

*MSI GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card

*MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card

*NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB Founders Edition Video Card

Also, where am I going to notice a difference between the 9900K and the 9700K? I know the i7 does not have Hyper Threading, but what would that affect in my scenario usage? Usually, I will have my game up on one screen, with various other applications up on another.

The RAM I'm looking at is all pretty similar. I think at this point it's an aesthetic thing. Between Corsair and GSkill DDR4 3200, 2x16GB, 16 CAS - Open to other options but want to stick with 3200 and 2x16GB

Thanks.

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Also, where am I going to notice a difference between the 9900K and the 9700K? I know the i7 does not have Hyper Threading, but what would that affect in my scenario usage? Usually, I will have my game up on one screen, with various other applications up on another.

Generally for gaming only, the 9700K is more than adequate and delivers on par with the 9900K. With streaming in the mix, you'll want to stick with 9900K with multi-threaded (HT) support enabled unless you're dedicating stream material (encoding) to the GPU's hardware encoder (NVENC). Essentially, the 8 additional threads in a HT environment (9900K) delivers around 25-30% added compute performance which compliments software encoding possibilities with lesser levy on gaming performance.

Alternatively, more cores/threads opens up greater versatility on the streaming side - this is possible with a Ryzen 3900X (12 cores). Essentially, a marginal performance deficit on the gaming side and a significant increase in compute resources on the encoding side (which also makes the better future-proofer).

These are the current GPU's I'm looking at:................................

GPU preference is purely down to user discretion with performance targets + spending power in mind. With a 2080 TI in the mix, i guess "cost" is the least of concerns here. What are you targeting in terms of display resolution and refresh rate? (eg. 1080p 144hz)

Also if you fancy sticking with intel and don't plan on overclocking, you might want to consider the i9-9900KS.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks for the reply. At this point I am at 1080p 144hz - with the plan to go 4k 144hz in the near future. Am I really losing out on all that much performance per price if I were to go with a Super vs a TI? I do prefer Intel as well. What is the advantage of the KS vs the K on the i9? Also any recommendations on RAM?

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

with the plan to go 4k 144hz in the near future.

If the "near future" is closer to 6-12+ months, grab a GPU which compliments 1080p 144hz gaming (RX 2070 SUPER for $500) and wait for RTX 3000 GPUs which are expected in mid-2020 to compliment higher refresh rate 4K gaming. Gaming cards are already quite expensive and anything above the RTX 2070 SUPER is more inclining towards "bad value".

For eg.

  • The 2070 SUPER is rivalled by a 10-15% performance margin with a 2080 SUPER with a whopping $200 premium on top.

  • The 2080 SUPER is rivalled by a 15-25% performance margin with a 2080 TI with a MAMMOTH $400-$450 premium. Keep in mind, the higher performance gain here is only reflective in higher resolution gaming and not @ 1080p 144hz which sees 10-15% gains only.

The problem being if you're planning on jumping on 4K with immediate effect there is that compromise of harnessing a very high quality and pixel dense display at the expense of FPS performance. Whether it's a 2080 TI or a supposed faster functioning 3080 TI, 144fps is already a very tough ask if you're targeting demanding games on top settings. For some sort of balance at this RES, the RTX 2080 TI (or waiting for 3000-series) definitely makes sense but in my personal opinion 4K is over-rated, costly and horribly fails to impress if the user is demanding equally effectual performance with higher FPS counts (although achievable via lower in-game presets which defeats the higher quality pixel-rich enthusiasm).

A finer solution for a dedicated gaming panel is 1440p 144hz which secures 1. sharp and immersive HI-RES image quality 2. Higher FPS fluidity ~144fps. Essentially a perfect balance between 1080p/4K and delivers 55% better performance (FPS) over 4K. Alternatively a 1440p ultra-widescreen which retains around 35-40% better performance over 4K.

I guess it's purely down to user-preference! Either best of both worlds with 1440p or a richer pixel dense 4K panel with a hefty performance compromise which also ends up being the lesser future-proof option (if you're growing gold in back garden I guess 4K is manageable with more consistent earlier upgrades to newer, bigger and better gaming cards).

What is the advantage of the KS vs the K on the i9?

There's a bunch of these ninja like codes with some meaningful variants:

  • i9-9900K - K-modifier = overclocking potential + integrated graphics

  • i9-9900KF - same as above, absent of integrated graphics + a negligible 0.5-1% core clockspeed performance gain

  • i9-9900KS - Simply a higher binned 9900K launched recently. The initial K-variant carries a baseclock speed of 3.6Ghz, the KS-variant pulls ahead at 4Ghz. The K-variants boost clock is capable of hitting 5Ghz across all cores but does waiver depending on how many cores are jam-packed/power/thermal conditions. The KS-variant scales to 5Ghz on all cores unconditionally providing adequate cooling is employed.

Essentially, the KS variant sees 2-3% performance gains in 1080p gaming. Possibly 0-2% gain at 1440p (depending on game type as higher res gaming is more GPU bound). But at 4K the performance disparity is eliminated or in the least a poorly optimised game may see some negligible returns.

Keep in mind @ 4K even a $329 Ryzen 3700X competes at an equal footing with the intel i9s. Higher resolution gaming is lesser effective per advancing single threaded clockspeeds as the shift in the power vacuum is more leaning on the GPU rendering engine. In some ways it makes sense grabbing a 3700X for less and opting for an over-priced RTX 2080 TI - I guess a value man's compensation without sacrificing performance. In fact i'd prefer the 3700X route to keep the doors open for Ryzen 4000 series upgrade possibilities (expected in 2020, on the same current AM4 socket).

Also any recommendations on RAM?

If you're sticking with intel, 3200Mhz 16CL is perfect. There are a handful of CPU-intense games which do benefit with faster frequencies and tighter timing controls but the performance disparity is too small to take any notice. Although 3600Mhz 17CL are available for as little as $10/$15 more. For AMD platforms, the faster the RAM the better; where 3600Mhz 17CL and it's affordability makes it a front runner. Or even 3600Mhz 16CL if it's reasonably priced per user discretion.

32GB in my opinion is overkill. In certain circumstances, it's plausible considering long-term shared resources/background processes can dump mem-intense workloads on the available capacity. Whether it's a lucrative future-proof investment is down to user workloads/running processes in conjunction with gaming but gaming alone doesn't show any signs of +16GIGS of MEM-resource utilisation. There are a couple of SIMS (eg. X-plane) which can post beyond 16GIGS (more-so randomly) but this is purely based on user asset configurations with vaster distance 3D render or object rendition (which is CPU/MEM-levied). If your wallet is heavy and desires a trim, 32GB is not a bad idea especially being RAM is more affordable today but not an absolute.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to type all that out. Appreciated. That gives me some things to think about.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

maybe 5-10% though if you are goinbg 4k 144 get a 2080 Ti with the highest boost clock.

The KS can do 5GHZ on all cores.

for RAM, 32GB would be better, as you might run into a bottleneck there. 4k 144Hz is EXTREMELY demanding - not even a 2080 Ti can run at 144Hz for even somewhat demanding games.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

If you're serious about over-60 fps, 4K gaming, with graphics detail settings up, the 2080 Ti is really the only game in town. At that level you're going to spend at least $1000 on the monitor, and it would be silly to hold it back because the GPU can't push pixels fast enough. I wouldn't worry as much about the CPU, since you aren't asking for extraordinary fps from the CPU side. The KS is selected for max overclocking potential, aside from that it's just a K. As for RAM, I recommend having some.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube