Question CPU upgrade

[gui0312]

So I have a Intel Core i5 6600k 3.50ghz along with an Asus ROG STRIX 1080ti, 16GB Ram, Asus Z270F mobi and an SSD. I have an Alienware 34” UW 120hz 3440x1440.

I recently tried getting into the laptop world to allow more portability around the house where I could game/productivity but, after trying a couple of models between the cost and the thermals I don’t I can justify it but, I digress.

Is upgrading to a core i7 9700k or 9900k worth it? I read some stuff online that the processor is primarily what determines the higher FPS m. I want to achieve 144hz always and with the possiblitly I will be getting the 240hz to go with the UW. Or does an upgrade to the CPU require (in this case) a MOBO/GPU upgrade as well?

Thanks!

 

[R_1]

upgrading to anything more than a 7 series intel, will require a new motherboard. the intel 7700k and other 7 series intel i series CPU will work in your system though. the RAM and GPU will work but the motherboard is the issue here.
whether it makes sense only you can answer. going to the 7700k will get maybe a 15% boost over what you have and the 9900K is about 25% better then the 7700k with the extra cores and threads.

｜｜ASUS USA

www.asus.com

the 7700k is the best the motherboard you have can run.

 

[RobCrezz]

I would just grab a 7700k or 6700k from the used market and overclock. By the time you have sold your 6600k it would be a pretty cheap upgrade.

No point changing the mobo for basically one generation newer.

 

[gui0312]

upgrading to anything more than a 7 series intel, will require a new motherboard. the intel 7700k and other 7 series intel i series CPU will work in your system though. the RAM and GPU will work but the motherboard is the issue here.
whether it makes sense only you can answer. going to the 7700k will get maybe a 15% boost over what you have and the 9900K is about 25% better then the 7700k with the extra cores and threads.

｜｜ASUS USA

www.asus.com

the 7700k is the best the motherboard you have can run.

So by upgrading the mobo and the cpu I should see an upgrade of about 40%?

 

[R_1]

So by upgrading the mobo and the cpu I should see an upgrade of about 40%?

under certain workloads, other will barely be notable outside of a bench-marking suite.
the speed of the memory you have may also hinder the 9900k achieve its maximum via memory overclocking.
following results are for the gist or general idea only.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/3647vs3503

UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-7700K vs i9-9900K

 

[cryoburner]

I want to achieve 144hz always

That's not going to happen, or at least, not in all games. While many games can manage to maintain over 144fps, even the fastest hardware available today will struggle to push over 100fps in certain titles.

So by upgrading the mobo and the cpu I should see an upgrade of about 40%?

Definitely not if we're talking about gaming performance. The per-core performance of Intel's CPUs hasn't increased substantially in years, and relatively few current games will make heavy use of more cores than your existing CPU has. Looking at the single and quad-core performance numbers on Userbench, with both processors overclocked, the 9900K only manages to be around 10-14% faster on average in their benchmark...

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/4028vs3503

For gaming, the differences are likely to be even less than that, due to the graphics hardware limiting performance. You have a high-end graphics card, but you also have a relatively high resolution monitor. If you are running games at 3440x1440, your graphics card will often be limiting performance more than your processor, at least if you are running recent games at high settings. Look at the 2560x1440 results in this 9900K review, for example, where they tested the processor with a 1080 Ti...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html

They don't test the 6600K, but the 7600K and 8350K quad-cores (which are only slightly faster than a 6600K at stock clocks) manage to perform within about 7% of the 9900K on average. If your processor is overclocked, there would be even less of a performance difference than that.

You'll also notice that none of the CPUs managed to average over 144fps in any of the recent games they tested at 1440p with a 1080 Ti at ultra settings. And since your resolution is ultrawide, with 34% more pixels to render than regular 1440p, the graphics card will become even more of a limiting factor. In short, don't expect to get much more than 5% higher average frame rates in most games with a 9900K over a 6600K, and don't expect to always get 144fps at that resolution.

In my opinion, it might not be worth upgrading to something like a 9900K or 9700K. Having access to more than 4 cores could help smooth performance in certain games that can make use of them, but you can get that out of even the current mid-range processors. Personally, I would probably just wait to see what the next generation of 7-10nm CPUs from AMD and Intel have to offer, rather than getting another 14nm processor.

 

[gui0312]

That's not going to happen, or at least, not in all games. While many games can manage to maintain over 144fps, even the fastest hardware available today will struggle to push over 100fps in certain titles.


Definitely not if we're talking about gaming performance. The per-core performance of Intel's CPUs hasn't increased substantially in years, and relatively few current games will make heavy use of more cores than your existing CPU has. Looking at the single and quad-core performance numbers on Userbench, with both processors overclocked, the 9900K only manages to be around 10-14% faster on average in their benchmark...

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6600K/4028vs3503

For gaming, the differences are likely to be even less than that, due to the graphics hardware limiting performance. You have a high-end graphics card, but you also have a relatively high resolution monitor. If you are running games at 3440x1440, your graphics card will often be limiting performance more than your processor, at least if you are running recent games at high settings. Look at the 2560x1440 results in this 9900K review, for example, where they tested the processor with a 1080 Ti...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/14.html

They don't test the 6600K, but the 7600K and 8350K quad-cores (which are only slightly faster than a 6600K at stock clocks) manage to perform within about 7% of the 9900K on average. If your processor is overclocked, there would be even less of a performance difference than that.

You'll also notice that none of the CPUs managed to average over 144fps in any of the recent games they tested at 1440p with a 1080 Ti at ultra settings. And since your resolution is ultrawide, with 34% more pixels to render than regular 1440p, the graphics card will become even more of a limiting factor. In short, don't expect to get much more than 5% higher average frame rates in most games with a 9900K over a 6600K, and don't expect to always get 144fps at that resolution.

In my opinion, it might not be worth upgrading to something like a 9900K or 9700K. Having access to more than 4 cores could help smooth performance in certain games that can make use of them, but you can get that out of even the current mid-range processors. Personally, I would probably just wait to see what the next generation of 7-10nm CPUs from AMD and Intel have to offer, rather than getting another 14nm processor.

Thank you so much for the reply/explanation!

Yeah I have been considering getting a 27” 2560x1440 144-165hz monitor. I feel the 34 UW is just not worth it in most games and I don’t do any video work whatsoever.

I agree, it’s probably best to wait for something substantial seeing that I would need to make an overhaul on most parts to make it work.