Question Need to upgrade my processor to Intel 11th gen and motherboard. New RAM ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rus4u

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2014
49
5
18,545
1
Thanks Karadjgne General Kenobi

Bothi9-10850K and i9-10900K look good enough, the i9-10900K is a bit better right?

Do you think it will last me 3-4 years without upgrading my PC if I also get better motherboard, quicker RAM and PCIe M.2 SSD?

P.S. I wonder when 5900x and 5950x will be available to buy for a regular price
 

General Kenobi

Respectable
Sep 19, 2018
737
152
2,290
65
Thanks Karadjgne General Kenobi

Bothi9-10850K and i9-10900K look good enough, the i9-10900K is a bit better right?

Do you think it will last me 3-4 years without upgrading my PC if I also get better motherboard, quicker RAM and PCIe M.2 SSD?

P.S. I wonder when 5900x and 5950x will be available to buy for a regular price
Yes it should work for 3-4 years without any issue and as also @Vic 40 mentioned go for i9 10850k it's cheaper and it's basically the same CPU as 10900k. Yes go for for lower latency ram like cl15/16 and for system like this go for 64 else 32gb minimum no need to go more than 3600mhz. And yes SSD like Samsung Evo 970 1tb minimum
 
Reactions: rus4u

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
I'd suggest you to get i9 10850K which is basically i9 10900k but inexpensive.The i9 is a solid value as it's even cheaper than the Ryzen 7 5800x.Imo the 5800X makes no sense at $450 as it only 8c/16t, whereas 8c CPUs from AMD have been available from 2017 for $350-yes they aren't great as 5800x but the prices were awesome, 5800x has higher IPC and clock speed(good work amd) but with all those improvement they are about 10% faster overall compared to i9 also the 5800x has 20% lesser core counts and 20% lesser threads and that's after paying extra for- 5800x? Hmm thats a hard Pill for me to swallow.The problem with Ryzen 5000 series is their price the only CPUs that makes sense is Ryzen 9 5900x/5950x.


I don't agree with you that games don't use 10c watch the games play of cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p with an i9 and 3090 the CPU load is most of the time above 55% i.e all of its 10 physical cores have been utilised.Let me give it to you this way 'You dont need 10c to play games but they will use them' theres the grey area;)
View: https://youtu.be/bLeComolWDE


View: https://youtu.be/5vgffKhyHTY

Even in warzone the CPU spikes upto 62% at 1440p that's well above 10c. Yes 8c will do it fine but i9/R9 will do it better, the performance would be great, games would be buttery due to better frame times also better multitasking. Remember rus4u has 4k144hz and a 1440p monitor so.....
@rus4u the CPUs that I'd recommend you are;
I9 10850k
Ryzen 9 5900x
Ryzen 9 5950x
Again I'll say it you are a premium user with a 3090 4k144hz and a 1440p monitor don't go cheap on your CPU swapping GPU is a not a big deal but the CPU is a big trouble.
So I'd recommend you a 5900x and a 5950x if possible but ik the availability sucks but if you can find one go for either 5900x/5950x and it'll serve your 5+years hopefully.
Cpu utilization is NOT a measure of how much of a cpu is used , it's a measure of how much resources a cpu uses. There's a difference. Bandwidth, cores, memory, clock speeds, loads, power capacity, i/o, pcie lanes, SMT/HT etc all that is part of utilization. It's very easy to have a game like CSGO maxed out and stuttering on 2 cores at 100% and show 50% utilization on an 8 core cpu. So showing differences of 55% vs 62% is meaningless if attributing it to only core count. Cores are only part of the equation or technically an FX8320 in Warzone should also get 62% utilization since it also is 8 cores, or a 10700k/11700k/11900k etc.

Any utilization number below @ 90% is virtually meaningless. Only 100% has any real relevance. Performance at 90% utilization vs 40% utilization is identical. Still within limits, no ceilings reached.

My old i7-3770K never went above 70% utilization for anything I played/used. So by your logic, I should still be good for anything. But reality is the IPC is dismal compared to even a 11400, leaving fps in the toilet regardless of utilization. I went from 90fps avg to 200fps avg in the same game, using only 4 threads, moving from a 3770k to a 3700x. Utilization went from 55% to 48%, moving from 4/8 to 8/16.

Your math doesn't work, values are incomplete and don't apply.
 
Last edited:

yeetbucket

Proper
Jan 14, 2021
154
28
110
0
It's going to be hard to get a 5900x and 5950x, and unless you have unlimited budget, them chips are not a good value IMHO. I mean geesh their expensive. Especially just for gaming NOT needed.

3700x or 10700 (229 at microcenter) are a LOT cheaper.

Save money for a good 1TB NVME drive.
but for cores and multithreaded performance NEEDED.
 
but for cores and multithreaded performance NEEDED.
OP CPU needs.

"PC is being used for gaming, Internet browsing, watching movies."

6 Cores or 8 Cores is more than enough for that.

The 6 Cores will last for the moment and the near future.

The 8 Cores will be good for 5 years.

You do not buy a 5900/5950X for games, internet browsing and watching movies.
 
Reactions: Why_Me
You do if you want the absolute highest performance for games.
Have you seen the benchmark on games with the 5600X, 5800X, 5900X and 5950X?

You would see that the 5800X is the best gaming CPU right now. It has better FPS than the 5600X and the 5900X/5950X on most titles. You don't buy a 5900X or 5950X for a 2 FPS increase on your games.

Since no games will use 8+ Cores it doesn't matter if you have 150 Cores. It won't be faster in games. 8 Cores is enough to get the maximum performance in games.

Maybe in 5 years+ 12+ Cores will be considered gaming CPU's. Not in 2021. Might as well say the OP should buy a Ryzen 3990X Threadripper 64 Cores for gaming.
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
First games used primarily 1 thread, maybe 2. So dual core cpus were highly popular, although you could make do with a Pentium. Eventually HT was introduced and then quad core cpus. And still games used 2 threads. Then quad+HT and still games used 2 threads. Then BF4 arrived and changed the game entirely.

With the advent of that game, and it's optimization to use 8 threads if available, even the joke of FX 8350 came 2nd, behind the i7-4790k. It's 8 threads beat out even an overclocked i5-4690k for fps. Game changer.

Now most all newer titles run 6-8 threads, making quad cores obsolete, as obsolete as BF4 made c2d's and i3's.

Fact is, it's software that dictates the lifespan of a cpu, not its physical limits. Right now, software dictates 6-8 threads is all that's necessary, so a 6/12 will have plenty of lifespan, but it is finite, not going to take forever until 10-12 threads becomes the norm.

The way history of gaming happens, it's roughly every 4-6 years before a major bounce. So count on that for the 6/12 cpus before they are pushing limits, maybe as high as 8-10 years before the 8/16 are pushing limits. But software again will evolve, and the IPC of a Ryzen3/Intel 10, just won't cut it.

I'm banking on 5years tops for my 3700x, even if it was a 3900x, it'd be the same. Just too slow regardless of thread count.

5600x/11600k should be good for 5-6 years. After that, it's not thread count that'll be the limiter, but IPC. A 5900x will be in the same boat, even if it still gets a couple more fps.
 

Vic 40

Titan
Ambassador
I agree with Karadjgne. Not a long time ago we said that 4 cores was more than fine and here we are games using way more, so having more cores won't hurt in the future. And yes loked at reviews, in some games the 5900x does beat the 5800X, so although that might mean nothing now might there be a point where it will differ.

Is abit hypothetical since the OP seems to have set his mind at the 10900K/10850K which are both good choices. With the 10850K looking at price likely the best option.
 

rus4u

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2014
49
5
18,545
1
Ok guys, once again thank you all very much for all your advises.

I have decided to go for 10850K thanks to @Karadjgne @General Kenobi

Let's move on :)

so now I need
  1. Motherboard
  2. RAM
  3. Hard drive
so I have been looking at

1.
a) ASUS ROG STRIX Z490-E GAMING, Intel Z490, S 1200, DDR4, SATA3, Dual M.2, SLi/CrossFire, 2.5GbE/ax Wifi, USB 3.2, ATX
b) MSI MAG Z490 TOMAHAWK, Intel Z490, S 1200, DDR4, SATA3, 2x M.2, CrossFire, 2.5GbE, USB 3.2 Gen1, ATX

2. Patriot VIPER STEEL 32GB (2X16GB) DDR4 PC4-28800C18 3600MHZ DUAL CHANNEL KIT (PVS432G360C8K)
CAS 18-20-20-38 Timings 1.35v VDIMM

3. 1TB Samsung 980 PRO, M.2 (2280), PCIe 4.0 (x4) NVMe SSD, Elpis, MLC 3D V-NAND, 7000MB/s Read, 5000MB/s Write

good choice?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: General Kenobi

rus4u

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2014
49
5
18,545
1
Yep. Just make sure to use the biggest cooler you can justify, the 10850k might run cooler than the 10900k, but not by all that much. If you push it, it'll get warm in a hurry.
thanks, I have actually forgot to post, I have be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3 67.8 CFM Fluid Dynamic Bearing CPU Cooler, should be still ok?
 

harpsinuno

Great
Apr 26, 2021
184
1
85
0
Any experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator comparing i9-10850K and i9-10900K? Since yesterday, I am considering i9-10850K as well, if temperatures are lower and OC possibilities plus performance are the same. Then maybe I can save some money for Custom Loop instead of AIO. Is it a better option?
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
10850k and 10900k are so close that differences in performance are negligible, within margins of error.

Cooling (once you get to the appropriate level) is personal for the most part. Many are quite happy with how an aircooler performs, or an AIO, each has is bonuses and drawbacks. Full loops are different in that they are not limited by wattage, but by space, you can design a loop that's quite capable of handling 1000w+, something aircooling and aio cannot do.

Cooling shouldn't be about getting the lowest temps, anything that's well under whatever limits you set is intrinsically all the same, a cpu could care less if it's 52°C or 62°C. Cooling should be about managing temps to stay within acceptable limits.

So if air won't do that, wattage or noise, and aio won't, a loop can often be the better choice.
 

harpsinuno

Great
Apr 26, 2021
184
1
85
0
10850k and 10900k are so close that differences in performance are negligible, within margins of error.

Cooling (once you get to the appropriate level) is personal for the most part. Many are quite happy with how an aircooler performs, or an AIO, each has is bonuses and drawbacks. Full loops are different in that they are not limited by wattage, but by space, you can design a loop that's quite capable of handling 1000w+, something aircooling and aio cannot do.

Cooling shouldn't be about getting the lowest temps, anything that's well under whatever limits you set is intrinsically all the same, a cpu could care less if it's 52°C or 62°C. Cooling should be about managing temps to stay within acceptable limits.

So if air won't do that, wattage or noise, and aio won't, a loop can often be the better choice.

I got confused again...
"you can design a loop that's quite capable of handling 1000w+, something aircooling and aio cannot do" - But I will probably need a PSU with 1000 W with an AIO mounted as well, if we forget custom loops. I didn't understand what you mean by this sentence. And I am not worried about noise. I have headphones...
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
There's 2 kinds of wattage, and they are related. There's wattage of power used, and wattage of heat made.

Your typical low wattage Ryzen is 65w, that relates to its power used limit, but can correspond to the amount of heat created and they amount of cooling required. So you wouldn't use a 50w rated cooler on a 65w cpu, you'd be better with a 140w budget cooler which has the ability to absorb anything the cpu puts out in heat, and then some. Which keeps temps down.

Wattage on a power supply is the available wattage total (supposedly). Most pc's use an average 100w for the cpu, 250w for gpu and 100w for everything else. So the maximum possible power draw would be @ 450w if you totally punished everything, which never happens, generally you'd only see @ 70% at most. Almost all psus have an efficiency range, 50-70% total loads, and thats the most comfortable range for the psu as far as watts pulled from the wall and heat given off. With a 450w max, you'd be good with a 550w psu. That means whatever you do, you have enough extra to play with and your usual load on the pc stays in the 50-70% psu range.

Air coolers generally top out at 250w capacity, for the biggest available, a 120mm AIO is @ 140w, a 240mm is @ 250w, a 280mm is @ 300w and the 360mm are @ 350w. That's capacity. It's best advised to keep your cooler @ 1.5x to 2x the size of the cpu power draw. A 10850k/10900k can get to 250w+ with a heavy OC and locked cores, TDP is ignored for maximum capability. So if running a cpu like that, hard and heavy rendering etc then you'd really want a cooler with at least 350w capacity.

A full custom loop has no limits as you can always add another radiator etc.
 

harpsinuno

Great
Apr 26, 2021
184
1
85
0
There's 2 kinds of wattage, and they are related. There's wattage of power used, and wattage of heat made.

Your typical low wattage Ryzen is 65w, that relates to its power used limit, but can correspond to the amount of heat created and they amount of cooling required. So you wouldn't use a 50w rated cooler on a 65w cpu, you'd be better with a 140w budget cooler which has the ability to absorb anything the cpu puts out in heat, and then some. Which keeps temps down.

Wattage on a power supply is the available wattage total (supposedly). Most pc's use an average 100w for the cpu, 250w for gpu and 100w for everything else. So the maximum possible power draw would be @ 450w if you totally punished everything, which never happens, generally you'd only see @ 70% at most. Almost all psus have an efficiency range, 50-70% total loads, and thats the most comfortable range for the psu as far as watts pulled from the wall and heat given off. With a 450w max, you'd be good with a 550w psu. That means whatever you do, you have enough extra to play with and your usual load on the pc stays in the 50-70% psu range.

Air coolers generally top out at 250w capacity, for the biggest available, a 120mm AIO is @ 140w, a 240mm is @ 250w, a 280mm is @ 300w and the 360mm are @ 350w. That's capacity. It's best advised to keep your cooler @ 1.5x to 2x the size of the cpu power draw. A 10850k/10900k can get to 250w+ with a heavy OC and locked cores, TDP is ignored for maximum capability. So if running a cpu like that, hard and heavy rendering etc then you'd really want a cooler with at least 350w capacity.

A full custom loop has no limits as you can always add another radiator etc.

Sorry, information is too complex...

I am still "studying" my machine: i9-10900K or i9-10850K (they are indeed not so much different) + RTX 3090 + AIO 360 mm cooler + 32 GB RAM + all the rest...

I want to overclock processor and RAM. Should I get PSU 850 W or PSU 1000 W? I am really confused because some people say 750 W, others 850 W, others 1000 W and I have even some answers which talk about 1200 W... It is almost impossible to buy something when we have so much different answers...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS