Intel i9-9900k/amd ryzen 2700x and mobo with ram sticks

[haelic]

Hey guys,

So I am new here and this is actually my first post. So I want to lay down a little history about me, I have been building and overclocking PCs for about 5 or 6 years now and have been an enthusiast about it for even longer, I've built computers for my friends but mainly have worked on my own rig and upgrading and overclocking it. So at first I started out with a sabertooth 990fx gen3 r2 mobo with an fx 6300, 1600 ddr3 ram, an r9 290x and a 1tb velociraptor that has since gone bad, also a few other things as well that aren't worth mentioning. Well since I have upgraded to an fx 8350, a gtx 1080, 1866 ddr3 ram and a case with a 380mm closed loop cooling system for my processor. I've also managed to overclock my fx8350 to be permanently stable at 4.6 Ghz but since have gotten scared and bumped it down to 4.4 cause I thought it was starting to go bad. Lol. So I am getting to the point where I need to upgrade/get a new mobo, processor, and with that ram. Btw I also run an ssd Samsung evo 860 ever since my velociraptor went bad. So anyways. I basically have 2 choices for upgrading and wondering which one you guys think would be the best option for me.

So my first, budget friendly option was the amd ryzen 2nd gen 2700x paired with an x470 asus ROG crosshair VII Hero mobo with 3466 ddr4 2x8gb Corsair vengeance LPX sticks. I've done some research on this and know that everything is compatible and supported by each other ie the mobo and ram.

My second option, the LESS budget friendly option, rip my bank account, is the brand new intel i9-9900k paired with the asus ROG maximus XI hero z390 chipset. SO one, I really dont like the look of this mobo, and that does mean something to me, two, I do think the intel choice would be the better choice for me, ie, longer lasting, better overclocking ability. BUT just the processor and mobo of the intel choice without the ram is 100$ more than the whole amd setup. I mainly use my computer for gaming in 4k. Also, where ever I look, I just CANNOT seem to find a memory support list for any of these z390 chipset boards. SO I would like to have another option on my mobo for intel, maybe one that's a little less expensive but still has the performance and ability for what i use it for and do with overclocking and whatnot, i basically am running my PC at 100% all the time. Lol SO that being said, anyone have any suggestions on another good mobo with a strong vrm that I can use in place of the asus rog maximus? I also would like a mobo with PREF a 5 year warranty on it like my last one, if not it's okay but I would like this to last me 10 years or so. I was looking at the gigabyte Aorus pro/ultra/master and it looked like a cool mobo but idk how reliable it is or any of the internal specs. Also, if you suggest a mobo please pair it with ram pref 3466 or 3200 at the lowest. Any help would be greatly appreciated, also, I want to spend the extra money on the intel build but really I need to know if it's worth it to break the bank. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated!
If anybody has any questions please feel free to ask. Hope to hear from you guys soon.

 

[Eximo]

My understanding is that many of the decent Z370 motherboards will also support the i9-9900k. Basically a Coffeelake refresh. So you have that as an option and you can look through their memory QVLs for more suitable choices.

If you really want the best of the best, hard to argue with ASUS's top of the line. Though I am not sure they are 100% trustworthy. They have some serious issues with the Intel VIII series as I recall. SLI not working and a few other problems.

Aorus motherboards do have a certain look that I also go for. Their black and white boards look nicer to me than the ASUS ones. More solid colors and less patterning. For dark themes you might look into EVGA, or possibly ASRock.

Since most of the Z390 boards are new, and most testers are still under embargo, I don't think there is a whole lot out there about them. Not sure I would jump in head first on these new chips.

Nothing wrong with the i7-8700k and it doesn't really have an equivalent in the new line-up. Also significantly cheaper.

If all you have is a GTX1080, I don't see a huge need to have the fastest possible processor, that GPU will become the bottleneck before a high end offering from Coffeelake.

I'm still sitting here with my i7-7700k and it does just fine getting within a few percent of what Coffelake can deliver with a 1080.

 

[haelic]

Eximo, alright thanks, I'm also doing more than just gaming, like running separate operating systems through virtual machines, I want to get top of the line gear so that the next part I need to upgrade down the road is my graphics card.

I've looked at the gigabye aorus master and ultra, but I noticed that theyr pcie slots are such that if you are running sli, the x16 slot runs at x8 and the second x16 alot also runs at x8 sharing the same bandwidth, are there any motherboards that dont do this? This just seems wrong. Also I have heard alot of good things about sli and also alot of bad things, especially alot of bad things in regards to the future of gaming and sli. So I am kind of stuck here, I dont want to throw away my brand new graphics card to upgrade again, it would help me alot if I could just get a second one instead of having to waste the money I spent on that graphics card and buy a brand new one top of the line.

I like the gigabyte auros mobo but I've also heard about some problems with it and I like the look of the asrock taichi mobo z390 but idk if I trust asrock, have they improved the quality of theyr hardware? Because last I heard they were a lower quality asus. I've seen fps rates of games with sli vs no sli and MOST games that aren't running at 150+ fps have a significant fps increase of almost 100% or more. This is really enticing. BUT if future games are moving away from SLI and filled with bugs, why do it? I want to be able to play my games at a dealable fps, on ultra settings at 4k, not 40 fps. 100 fps would be 1000x better and is exactly what I'm looking for but I dont want to waste my new gtx 1080 sc and break the bank buying a new graphics card along with all these other upgrades. Do you have any advice? Anyone?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Greeko85]

The only boards that will allow you to run sli in a setup higher than x8x8 is boards similar to the x299 chipset (for intel) or threadripper for amd. That will also be dependent on the cpu you are using and the number of PCI-e lanes provided by the said cpu. With that said even with x8x8 the cards will not be bandwidth starved so you will not notice much difference.

SLI is a tricky situation-some games scale well and some not at all. You will have to deal with the additional power draw and heat generation as well. It seems the last couple of years SLI/crossfire support has not been as great as it once was-its still a viable option but if you can get a single more powerful card you'd be dealing with less issues.

 

[Eximo]

Well, I was surprised to see NVlink supported on the new cards. So SLI is sort of back, however, you would only need that for running ludicrous displays like the new 4K 144hz(120hz) panels, or multiple high resolution monitors. RTX2080Ti makes pretty quick work of 4K 60hz and 3440x1440, and probably 5120x1440p displays (if those exist, I know the 3840x1080 versions do) So baring being on the cutting edge of gaming, SLI is more or less useless to the average person. Assuming you have $4,000 to spend on graphics and monitors alone is when it starts making 'sense'

Some game engines are designed completely around not using alternate frame rendering. Unreal 4 uses a compression system so that only what is necessary to re-render is rendered. Can't do AFR at the same time, so zero support for SLI/Crossfire there. And that is a lot of games. Pretty much what convinced me since a lot of what I play tends toward that engine. I went from a pair of 980 to a single 1080, an effective downgrade.

DX12 was more or less supposed to make AFR obsolete by turning all GPUs into a pool of processing and memory. They also support more traditional multi-GPU, but since it is up to the developers to implement and not built in, it makes it a lot harder. So all but the fanciest of games are probably going skip the extra work. Same with Vulcan and Mantle, lower level. Means more optimization, but more work to implement.

Also have to consider that targeting the 1% of users that have multiple GPUs is not a good return on investment, outside of tech demos anyway. Companies like CryTek will probably keep pushing it out the door though since they like to stay on the bleeding edge.

 

[haelic]

Okay thanks guys, so turns out I had just enough time to register, buy an extended warranty, and sign up for the step-up program for a 2080ti.

On a second note, intel has said that their brand new i9-9900k was the fastest gaming processor on the market, it came out this morning. I am still on the fence about which way I want to go, amd or intel. None of the intel z390 mobos have any reviews yet since they are brand new. I finally found some memory support lists for them. And I did some research and found that neither the amd ryzen 2700x mor the i9-9900k have enough lanes to support 2 graphics cards running with x16 lanes at the same time. So that's out the window. But I just dont know which one to pick. If I go intel, I will be cutting it super close on my budget spending 1900$ for the processor, mobo, ram, and the 2080 ti. If I go amd, I will for sure have the money to buy the 2080ti once the step up queue is ready for me. All together amd I would be spending around 1400-1500$ for CPU, mobo, ram, and the 2080 ti.

I have done some research on the two cpu's and have found that the i9-9900k provides only 12-17% more frames during gaming. Now gaming is my main concern but I also like doing other things like running virtual machines too. I want to get the i9 but I just dont know if an extra 500$ is worth getting 12-17% which in a real world scenario at 4k max settings running 40-50 fps that's only an extra 6-8 frames per second. Which is good, but idk how much of a difference I'd notice between 40 fps and 46 fps. Lol. Also, i am looking for this to last me ATLEAST 10-12 years. So what do you guys think? I think the intel is def rhe better option i just dont know if the 14% is worth. Now if the intel chip would last me twice as long as the amd chip I would def go with intel. I will be overclocking these chips since I have a closed loop cooling system with a 360mm radiator and 3 fans on it. So what do you guys think? And if you have and specific mobo recommendations that would be great. I'm looking at ram that runs anywhere between 3800-4133 ddr4.

Hope you guys have a great day.

 

[Eximo]

The CPU is not the limit in either situation at 4K, that will come down solely on the graphics card. Those tests you are seeing are done at lower resolutions so the difference between the CPUs becomes apparent. If you max out the graphics setting and resolution the GPU will be sitting at 100% load and the CPU will have idle time.

Ryzen typically doesn't go as high as Intel when it comes to memory speed. 4133 is quite extreme as well. You would need excellent ram and a very good IMC on the chip. That would be some serious overclocking and running more voltage than specified through the IMC, if it breaks, that is one dead CPU.

As you noted, no one is going to have motherboard suggestions for a few weeks. Any of them could have problems until they get into the hands of the general public with all kinds of configurations. I would typically trust companies like ASUS, Gigabyte, probably EVGA for heavy duty overclocking like you are planning.

A computer that lasts 10-12 years, probably not likely. You are better off constantly upgrading mid-range systems then buying the bleeding edge and trying to make it last. i9-9900k is creeping into premium territory, you could save a lot by getting an i7-8700k or i7-9700k. Given the likelihood of no upgrade path for this socket, I wouldn't invest myself. Going to hold out until at least Cannonlake's successor. LGA3647 I could see lasting longer, basically a new socket and those last a lot longer than consumer sockets, also hex-channel memory rather than dual. Threadripper would be another path. Both handle your desire to have 16x/16x...