Has anyone tried the 10900k yet?

Why would you compare them at 4ghz anyways? Buying 10900k and not overclocking it 5.1ghz all core is just plain stupid.

Because you would need a 3-cubic-mile iceberg to keep it cool at 5.1GHz ;)

You wont reliably get that CPU to 5.1GHz all core OC iirc from reading and watching reviews.

Which, for DCS, would be of no use anyway. Rather oc individual cores, attach DCS to those, and call it a false investment still.

There is some poor information / opinion / analysis / interpretation in this thread in various places.

First thing, you have a current top GPU which is being held back by your CPU and memory. I totally understand you wanting to upgrade now. Before you do anything just realise the following:

1) Towards the end of the year Nvidia will release the successor to Turing which is rumoured to be c.40% faster!!!

2) AMD will release Zen 3 CPUs which are rumoured to be c.15% faster that Zen 2 on single threaded performance! So they could really bridge the gap with what intel has been achieving on 14nm, while still reaping the benefits of 7nm.

3) Intel's Z490 platform is likely to be "current" in 2020, 2021 and be replaced by LGA 1700 in 2022: this will bring 10nm lithography to CPUs, PCIe4, probably DDR5 and possibly USB4. Of course a Comet Lake CPU will still work in 2022, but you might well find yourself wanting to upgrade again.

Of course in the tech world there is always something new, "better" every year so you would never do anything if you kept waiting and waiting and waiting. The real question should be does you current set up meet your expectations or is it holding you back. It sounds like you are frustrated and it is holding you back. Okay, so I get why you are looking to upgrade.

In a nutshell the new Comet Lake CPUs are very good for DCS. I have not seen benchmarks yet, nor do I have one. But what I can say is:

1) i5-10600K, i7-10700K and i9-10900K processors all get the 0.5mm silicon substrate (down from 0.8mm) which helps cooling. And they use solder to attach the IHS. So compared to Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake they are easier to cool on a same number of cores, same clock speed basis. If left at default settings the CPUs will turbo effectively and remain at 125W power draw which is easily coolable with a quality air cooler like a Noctua NH-D15 or BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4 and sufficient case ventilation. Sure you can draw as much as 300W on a 10 core clocked at 5.2GHz all core and that will be much harder to cool but you don't need 5.2GHz on 10 cores to shift your bottleneck significantly in DCS.

2) Probably what you should aim for is 1 or 2 cores boosted to 5GHz or beyond. And the great news is that you can do that with the relatively inexpensive i5 and a good quality motherboard like the Z490I Unity which is available at only c.$270 and an aircooler.

3) If you do go for the i7 or i9, they are costing significantly more and DCS will not use the extra cores (which also generate heat you need to get rid of). However, next generation consoles will have 8 core / 16 thread CPUs, so more games will be written with that CPU capacity in mind. So getting an i7 future proofs you a bit more. If you are just optimising for DCS however then other games are not a concern. But I just mention it.

4) Also if you go i7, it is better binned than the i5. And the i9 is better binned than the i7.

5) And finally i7 and i9 get you the new turbo boost thing... whatever it is called. Meaning you can be lazy and let the CPU overclock itself pretty effectively. But less a concern if you were going to do an manual overlock and power consumption be damned. (Like I would).

Conclusion: new Comet Lake CPUs are great for DCS, they are available right now (no waiting for never never), the i5 is great value for DCS. But AMD will likely come up with something equally good for games AND better at other stuff later in the year. And Intel themselves will come up with a bigger technology leap in 2 years. And the GPU market is about to light up again.

 

I don't agree fully though about waiting as I have waited long enough and nearly bought a 9900k last year.

 

I wasn't suggesting that you wait. If I was in your position, personally, I would upgrade now. And AMD rumours don't always translate fully into reality. Smart cookie getting AMD shares. No wonder you can afford an i9 and an RTX 3080 Ti! :megalol:

I looked at the 10900k in an Alienware build I just bought a week ago. I ended up going with the 9700k overclocked to 4.7MHz for better DCS performance and lower cost.

In this video the i5-10600k is clocked into same performance and even over i9. There are also older models on the same charts to compare. Btw don't confuse the i9 -X model to the new one. But if buying CPU now at least I would like it to have more cores for longevity. If only using computer for DCS this i5 with high speeds would be a good buy. My old i7 doesn't go high at all, and even if it did on that test the 5.1 Ghz i7 is often even behind i5 9600k stock.

Yes the I5 is the logical and obvious choice on intel side.

I have been watching the reviews and my goodness they are misleading. You have to look in to the devil in the details such as:

1-power consumption and temperatures to reach 5Ghz is not really feasible for the i9 24/7 without monster cooling apparatus that most people never consider buying.

2- I9 tested on 360 AIO, while older CPU's are air cooled, yeah right.

3-Why are people using old games such as far cry 3 and GTA I don't know. Once you reach a certain FPS threshold (far higher than what your monitor refresh rate is capable of or than you need) you'll see stuttering settling in due to poor game optimization.

4-Also anything with modern API sees Intel's advantage evaporate away. But this is rarely ever shown.

5-They show new CPU's overclocked VS older on Stock.

6-AMD side for example they often even don't show up configured with the recommended memory & infinity speeds (3600/1800) that the chips are capable of out of the box. Thats 5-20% of performance chopped off right there.

7- while they are at it, the memory speeds in comparisons are different. Even the 7700K can run 3600 Mhz RAM, so all CPU's should be tested without memory bottlenecks.

8- Most reviewers fail to choose benchmarks with complex scenes with many units on screen like a battle for example and opt instead to go 1080P standard single person shooters built in benchmarks when they are more adequate for graphics cards.

i5-9600k vs i5-10600k (both OC to ~5.1 GHz) on a machine that only runs DCS and nothing else?

Easy way to save some bucks avoiding 'the new shiny' and effectively getting the same results at the "seat of the pants" in DCS?

There was a good comparison among new and last gen Intel (and AMD) on Hardware Canucks on Youtube. Worth watching.

 

Reviewer is pissed with Intel's lameness with this generation of CPUs so ignore his editorialisation comments and pay attention to the numbers.

 

HTH

Because the Die Hard Intel Faithful do not like it when AMD shows them up.

Shoulda read reviews during the K6-II/III Era.

i5-9600k vs i5-10600k (both OC to ~5.1 GHz) on a machine that only runs DCS and nothing else?

 

 

Easy way to save some bucks avoiding 'the new shiny' and effectively getting the same results at the "seat of the pants" in DCS?

Comet Lake CPUs are priced below their predecessors on a comparable SKU basis (ie top 6 core, vs top 6 core). They cool better and have multithreading. The only reason to buy a previous generation CPU is if you already own a Z290, Z390 or whatever motherboard and want to upgrade CPU without a new motherboard. Or unless the previous generation CPUs get very heavily discounted or used bargain on eBay. The OP starting this thread was on a much older system requiring a new motherboard so would be an idiot not to get on Z490 if sticking with Intel and in the absence of discounts.

https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05/spieleleistung-test-intel-core-i9-9900k-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ram-oc/2/#diagramm-metro-exodus

That´s all about AMD vs Intel in Gaming with OC.

To have a idea of performance in DCS, everybody can look at the results of anno 1800. This is single core performance and in this case, the 9900ks is 40% ahead.

A 10900k can go higher, than the 9900ks. May be 5,3 or 5,4GHz vs 5.0Ghz. That´s realy extreme power for gaming.

I love the interactive bar charts: what a clever way of presenting the data!

does ram speed make any real differnce? im using 32gb at 3ghz

If you have a slow CPU, not much. If you have an overclocked i9-10900K, or similarly fast CPU then yes.

Also on AMD platforms RAM speed has a significant difference but you will want to match RAM speed to the infinity fabric clock speed (sensible limit for current AMD platforms is at 3733 CL17).

What RAM speed would you suggest for overclocked 10600K and 10900K?

The 3200CL14 kit I have is nice, but memory prices and availability of fast memory means if I was choosing now I'd get 32GB kit rated at 3600 16-16-16-36. B-die kit almost certainly. And fast without spending silly money on diminishing returns. 32GB as 16GB you might sometimes hit a bottleneck in DCS. But no more. Or maybe 3866 18-18-18-38 depending on price and availability.

3200CL14 is actually best memory you can get without spending silly amounts of money. With 8.75ns latency it is faster then 3600CL16 and even 4000CL19

I might be wrong about this, but raw single tick memory performance is important too: for sequential memory fetches where you are not activating new columns of the memory. And also the 3866 18-18-18-38 has faster tRAS than the 3200 kit (19.6ms vs 21.2ms).

But big picture, this is all swings and roundabouts: main point is not to buy just on basis of speed, but also on latency and price.

At my local PC vendor there is a ~$20 difference between 3200CL14 and 3600CL16 16GB kits. 3200CL14 is more expensive.

Seat of the pants - will it be noticed?

No: not in that range... both are near as good as each other. I'd buy the cheapest or the one with the least RGB frikkin lazer beams... but that is just me.

After my own heart. lol

Thx

If you want to reach the supposed 40% intel overclocking advantage you need 4133 memory.

Than you have perhaps a 40% advantage at 720P ;-)

https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05/spieleleistung-test-intel-core-i9-9900k-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-ram-oc/2/#diagramm-metro-exodus

 

 

That´s all about AMD vs Intel in Gaming with OC.

 

 

To have a idea of performance in DCS, everybody can look at the results of anno 1800. This is single core performance and in this case, the 9900ks is 40% ahead.

 

 

A 10900k can go higher, than the 9900ks. May be 5,3 or 5,4GHz vs 5.0Ghz. That´s realy extreme power for gaming.

ok if you are playing at 4k, does your CPU matter that much? it means nothing to me however faster it is. the next gen GPUs are what we are waiting for

If you want to reach the supposed 40% intel overclocking advantage you need 4133 memory.

Than you have perhaps a 40% advantage at 720P ;-)

Ok, I'll bite. :)

What would you propose for an oveclocked AMD build to go head to head with the 10600/10900?

ok if you are playing at 4k, does your CPU matter that much? it means nothing to me however faster it is. the next gen GPUs are what we are waiting for

That doesn't make sense in DCS, a fly exclusively in VR, all setting maxed out and 1.4 PD on a HP reverb. My 2080ti runs at around 60% utilisation, zero FPS increase if I heavily overclock it.