Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Bofferbrauer2]

vivster said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Fine for what exactly?

For just gaming, a 10600K would be amply enough. The difference is measurable, but within just a couple frames.

For productivity, a 3900X is much better and cheaper at the same time yet not much slower in gaming. And you could upgrade to Zen 3 later this year, which most likely will finally also take Intel's gaming crown away.

I know you don't want to wait, but with Ampere, Big Navi and Zen 3 practically just around the corner, I'd say now is a pretty bad moment to start a new build.

Isn't it always a bad moment to build?

I'm building a 100% Gaming PC that will not be used for anything but gaming. It won't even run any applications in the background. So what I need most over everything is strong single core performance with high clocks for high fps. The 10900k is the best option for that there is. It has the most reserves, because those single digit percentages of performance gain will get bigger over the years if I'd opt for something less. The only reason to not pick it is if I want to save some money or if PCIe3 presents a serious bottleneck in the next 3 years.

I would like to buy AMD over Intel because I expect Zen 3 to be on par with the 10900k for my use case but I'm not sure if it's actually worth the wait. Why wait just to have something that does the same thing?

Would be true if you could upgrade the GPU. But if RTX 2060 is the limit for PCIe 3 x8, then a 2080ti is the limit for x16. Ampere will need PCIe 4 to get it's power to the ground, something NVidia has already pointed at.

So if you can't upgrade the GPU to make use of the extra power, then you can just as well settle for a 10600K. Or go AMD to be able to use PCIe 4 and thus full power on the next gen GPUs.