By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
vivster on 26 August 2020
Edit Thread
Bofferbrauer2 said:
vivster said:

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.

I think the judges aren't in for that yet. The things I've read is that a 2080ti barely uses 8x. I will certainly wait for Ampere benchmarks before I make a decision on that.

Here is a nice test

https://www.igorslab.de/en/pcie-4-0-and-pcie-3-0-different-between-x8-andx16-with-the-fast-fastest-cards-where-the-bottle-neck-begins/

Overall there is no noticeable difference between PCIe 3 x8 and x16 on the highest end GPUs with heavy loads. Also the required bandwidth seems to go down with higher resolution, that's probably because of the lower fps.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.