Question 59050x vs 10900K- dual monitor GPU or Integrated Graphics decisions help!

victortsoi

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2013
120
0
18,680
0
So I am building a new system and money is not really an object, within reason. I am upgrading from an 8700k/1080ti set up where the CPU is hooked into my secondary screen and the GPU into my primary.
I was really considering trying an amd build for the first time after reading the great reviews on the 5900x or 5950x.
  • I had been hooking my second screen into the CPU to avoid overtaxing my GPU. If I get an AMD without integrated graphics, and have two screens hooked into the 1080ti as a result, will my GPU performance degrade from now?
  • Should this decision affect whether I go amd or intel?
Needless to say, it was a little disappointing that there are no integrated graphics for a 5000 series chip, they seem really great otherwise.

NOTE- I will be using the 1080ti until GPU availability and price is reasonable in the near future, then perhaps I'll get an AIO cooled 3090, when those are out and available.
 
It depends.

If your second monitor was just open to a simple app, text document, or something similar the difference will be miniscule, if anything.
If your second monitor is playing a YouTube video or otherwise 'using' the computational muscle of the 1080Ti then you may notice a drop in performance.
Also note that if you are playing a game that uses all of your VRAM but doesn't go over, then using a second monitor may put you over the top and cause caching to system RAM. This would only occur in the specific case where the games used all your VRAM but didn't go over. A second monitor may push you over in that instance.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: victortsoi

victortsoi

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2013
120
0
18,680
0
It depends.

If your second monitor was just open to a simple app, text document, or something similar the difference will be miniscule, if anything.
If your second monitor is playing a YouTube video or otherwise 'using' the computational muscle of the 1080Ti then you may notice a drop in performance.
Also note that if you are playing a game that uses all of your VRAM but doesn't go over, then using a second monitor may put you over the top and cause cashing to system RAM. This would only occur in the specific case where the games used all your VRAM but didn't go over. A second monitor may push you over in that instance.
Thanks so much. No, if I was gaming the second monitor would almost always just be displaying the desktop or an open page, or file etc. I would hope that the VRAM issue wouldn't occur with a 1080ti or eventually 3080/90!
 
So I am building a new system and money is not really an object, within reason. I am upgrading from an 8700k/1080ti set up where the CPU is hooked into my secondary screen and the GPU into my primary.
I was really considering trying an amd build for the first time after reading the great reviews on the 5900x or 5950x.
  • I had been hooking my second screen into the CPU to avoid overtaxing my GPU. If I get an AMD without integrated graphics, and have two screens hooked into the 1080ti as a result, will my GPU performance degrade from now?
  • Should this decision affect whether I go amd or intel?
Needless to say, it was a little disappointing that there are no integrated graphics for a 5000 series chip, they seem really great otherwise.

NOTE- I will be using the 1080ti until GPU availability and price is reasonable in the near future, then perhaps I'll get an AIO cooled 3090, when those are out and available.
Thanks so much. No, if I was gaming the second monitor would almost always just be displaying the desktop or an open page, or file etc. I would hope that the VRAM issue wouldn't occur with a 1080ti or eventually 3080/90!
1080Ti can easily run game on it and display some easy stuff on second monitor without any visible drop in performance specially when you have strong processor. Besides that, not many MBs can display simultaneously with dedicated GPU even when CPU has an IGPU.
 
Reactions: victortsoi

victortsoi

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2013
120
0
18,680
0
1080Ti can easily run game on it and display some easy stuff on second monitor without any visible drop in performance specially when you have strong processor. Besides that, not many MBs can display simultaneously with dedicated GPU even when CPU has an IGPU.
So I guess the advice is to not let this affect decision on amd vs intel?
 
Displaying non-games is a trivial task for a GPU. A GT 710 can do that kind of task without sweating and a 3090 -- or any modern GPU -- is many, many orders of magnitude more powerful than a GT 710.
I wouldn't go that far.
Displaying a video stream that needs decompressing will definitely hit up the 1080Ti. Will it affect game FPS depends on several different factors.
 
FWIW:
I use a GTX1080ti and have a side 1600P monitor connected along with a 48" 4k LG oled TV.
Over the years, I have notice no difference in performance.

It is good that budget is not an issue; you will pay some $1200 for a 5950x.

What is the main purpose for your PC?
Once you have 8 threads like your I7-8700K added threads do not help gaming.
Games mostly depend on the performance of the single master thread.
The exception is multiplayer with many participants.

If your purpose is heavy multitasking or running well threaded batch apps, then the 32 threads of the 5950X is as good as it gets.

For single thread performance the improved IPC(Instructions Per Clock) of ryzen 5000 and intel 11th gen is very much worth getting. It turns out that the IPC of each is similar.
The difference between ryzen 5000 and intel 11th gen comes down to the boost clocks.
I would look more to the advanced boost of the i9-11900K which can be 5.3 on two cores if conditions are right.
It alsy may turn out to depend on how aggressive individual motherboards are in allowing higher than advertised boost levels.
 

victortsoi

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2013
120
0
18,680
0
FWIW:
I use a GTX1080ti and have a side 1600P monitor connected along with a 48" 4k LG oled TV.
Over the years, I have notice no difference in performance.

It is good that budget is not an issue; you will pay some $1200 for a 5950x.

What is the main purpose for your PC?
Once you have 8 threads like your I7-8700K added threads do not help gaming.
Games mostly depend on the performance of the single master thread.
The exception is multiplayer with many participants.

If your purpose is heavy multitasking or running well threaded batch apps, then the 32 threads of the 5950X is as good as it gets.

For single thread performance the improved IPC(Instructions Per Clock) of ryzen 5000 and intel 11th gen is very much worth getting. It turns out that the IPC of each is similar.
The difference between ryzen 5000 and intel 11th gen comes down to the boost clocks.
I would look more to the advanced boost of the i9-11900K which can be 5.3 on two cores if conditions are right.
It alsy may turn out to depend on how aggressive individual motherboards are in allowing higher than advertised boost levels.
Right thanks for your answer. It puzzles me because I keep hearing that the 11900K is just not great and the 5950x is amazing, and I don't really understand why. In userbenchmarks, the 11900k is the clear winner. Is there something I'm missing?

I want to primarily game, but I also will want to stream, have millions of webpages, and work files (pdf and word) open at the same time, etc.
 
There is a certain amount of fanboy in all of us; me included.
People tend to recommend what they bought.
It is human nature to want to justify your own decisions.

Much depends on what the pc is primarily used for.
Most games can not make effective use of more than 4-6 threads.
You will see activity on all threads, but that is just windows spreading the load out among all the available threads.
Multiplayer with many participants can use more.
So for games, once you have 8 threads, the clock rate means all.
Actually, for games, the graphics card is THE most important component.

If you will be heavily multitasking, you need two things.
a) Sufficient ram to hold most of what you are working on in ram at the same time. Perhaps 32gb or even 64gb.
b) Sufficient threads so all of those tasks do not need to wait for a thread to do the work.

You might want to try an experiment on your I7-8700.
Take a thread away and see how much, if any it impacts your gaming.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of threads to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, your game does not need all the threads you have.

I might add that the userbenchmark app is considered as junk science.
No telling what overclocking has been done.
 
Reactions: victortsoi
You might want to try an experiment on your I7-8700.
Take a thread away and see how much, if any it impacts your gaming.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of threads to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, your game does not need all the threads you have.
You can go to task manager right click on the game .exe and go to details, there right click on the game .exe again and use set affinity to reduce available virtual or real cores in real-time.
I might add that the userbenchmark app is considered as junk science.
No telling what overclocking has been done.
And yet they are saying the same things that you are.
"Most games can not make effective use of more than 4-6 threads
So for games, once you have 8 threads, the clock rate means all."
Which is why they are showing the results that they are showing, and keeping the multithreaded score less pronounced.
 
Reactions: victortsoi

victortsoi

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2013
120
0
18,680
0
You can go to task manager right click on the game .exe and go to details, there right click on the game .exe again and use set affinity to reduce available virtual or real cores in real-time.

And yet they are saying the same things that you are.
"Most games can not make effective use of more than 4-6 threads
So for games, once you have 8 threads, the clock rate means all."
Which is why they are showing the results that they are showing, and keeping the multithreaded score less pronounced.

Thanks again for replies. I'm just struggling to understand why exactly most people will advise to get a 5950x over a 10900k or 11900k.
 

tecmo34

Administrator
Moderator
Thanks again for replies. I'm just struggling to understand why exactly most people will advise to get a 5950x over a 10900k or 11900k.
It is because the 5950X dominates the Intel CPU's in applications that use multiple-threads such as video editing with its higher core / thread counts. In gaming, the 5950X out performs the 10900K in 1080p resolutions and the 11900K closes that gap but increases the gap in other applications since has lower core / thread count, even to the 10900K. Once you get pat 1080p, it becomes more dependent on the GPU and higher core clocks versus cores / threads, which Intel makes up ground with its high boost clock & general overclocking ability.

You can't really go wrong with either or to be truthful, It comes down to what you want to play and how long are you willing to wait to grab a CPU and or GPU.
 
Reactions: victortsoi

DSzymborski

Polypheme
Moderator
Yeah, before this one, I hadn't had a primary AMD build since my Phenom IIx4 965 Black build back in around 2010. I game and work on my main rig, though my work isn't as time-crucial as, say, professional video editors. Once AMD caught up and pulled ahead of Intel in gaming, even if by a smaller margin than in productivity, the calculus changed enough that switching over was a real no-brainer for me.

The only question was when I'd be able to snag a Zen 3. Otherwise, I would have just kept the 8700K a while longer (it's been demoted to a file server).
 

sonofjesse

Reputable
Jul 27, 2016
334
68
4,790
8
1080TI can do that no issues. 5900x and 5950x seem high and hard to get.

10850k is 349 at MC and like 380 online. It's basically a low binned (100mhz) 10900k and still a great chip and it has GPU for backup.

Good luck on your build!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS