Upgrade recommendations

Hardware & Tech Questions
1

Looking to upgrade my PC.

Curretnly i have:

I7-9770K
2080 Super
64 GB DDR4 RAM

Looking to go to the following:

i9-13900KF or I7-13700KF Leaning towards the I9 due to cores and threads

64 GB DDR 5 RAM

1000watt PS

MSI MAG Z790 TOMAHAWK WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard

I game on a 34" curved screen, 3440x1440@144ghz

VR is something I have thought about but not fully ready to commit too.

Currently I’m not sure on which graphics card to go with, or if I even need to replace the 2080s

My display has AMD freesync and I have thought about switching to an AMD card. I have been NVIDA for years but since EVGA left NVIDA im open to change.

The last experience i had with AMD graphic was with Star Wars Galaxies. Every patched had to have an additional patch for AMD cards, hence my reluctance .

So I guess my question would be,

Is the I9 worth it over the I7?

And which card would be best to replace the 2080Super I have and is AMD an option?

EDIT: I did already by the power supply. Just an FYI

2

AMD GPUs are in every Xbox now, so they are getting more market share if that counts.

I’d say: Whatever your money can buy, just avoid the extremes as they are money pits.
7900XT or XTX for example.

Nvidia seems to be a bit cocky lately and deserves a slap, imo. I don’t get their market strategy.

My background: All but two of my cards have been Nvidia (Back then 3DFX Voodoo, now 6800XT, in between decades of Nvidia).

2 Likes
3

Not for gaming, usually. The high core counts does cost a few percent single core performance. Bus overhead and heat and all that.

2 Likes
4

I just checked some benchmarks fron my favorite review site and they are showing identical performance in RDR2, 1080p, medium settings (for CPU bottleneck), with 195.9 for the i9 13900K vs 194.3 fps for the i7 13700K.

But in the slowest 99 percentile frametime (lower is better), the i7 13700K scores a bit better with 7.7 ms vs 7.9 ms for the i9.

So yes, the i7 is cheaper, better at gaming and consumes less energy (thus cheaper in long run and quieter).

@Poneybirds is right!

About GPUs: I have been very active on the GPU market recently and have in the past 3,5 years used GTX 1080, RX 6800 XT, RX 6900 XT for a few weeks and am now using an RTX 3080. Mainly because it is a quieter cooler (ASUS TUF) than the 6900 XT (Red Devil) that I bought just before and because of the sudden discount. The 6900 XT did outperform the Nvidia in DCS and is a better fit for Linux dual boot that I am running now. But the fans on the Red Devil were terribly loud. Not AMD’s fault.

It is important to focus not just on the brand name but on the way these cards achieve their similar performance numbers, as it can matter depending on whether you use VR or high pixel count (4K with AA) or on the other hand, if you prefer a cool and quiet operation of your gaming rig.

Last gen (RTX 3000 vs RX 6000), AMD had much more power efficient cards that were comparatively better at lower pixel counts, and suffered a bit towards the high end of high-res VR.

This gen (RTX 4000 vs RX 7000), it is exactly the other way around: now Nvidia is relying more on VRAM cache and has less raw bandwidth, thus saving A LOT on power and creating the most efficient cards ever, while AMD has more raw bandwidth this time and is not coming close to the efficiency (energy per frame) that Nvidia is getting. However, in high pixel count scenarios, such as high res VR, you can be sure that an RX 7900 XT will beat the RTX 4070 Ti.

About VR: AMD had a bug in their drivers for the 7900 series that caused bad performance in VR but that has been fixed in the early July driver update. Confirmed by independent reviewers.

And yes, this does tempt me to buy an RX 7900 XT but I should not, as the incremental improvement over the 3080 is too small to justify throwing away another expected €300 in value in the next year.

2 Likes
5

I guess my current hang up with the I7 and I9 is DCS MT.

Up until the F15E release i was I7 all the way, but the 15E radar and DCS MT really got me thinking that more threads are better.

As for graphics I got more research to do. I think ill look into AMD as well.

Graphics card will be my last purchase since I fell the 2080 is holding its own right now.

6

Just a HU - I had a 2080Ti and then bought a 4080 - and the 4080 is far better, no doubt at all.
I did wonder if I should bother - or pay that much - because I thought the 2080Ti was pretty much up to everything I wanted, but I was very wrong. Even without any fiddling the 4080 was far superior. Plus my 850W Corsair PSU is ample.

1 Like
7

The difference between the 9700k and 13700k as far as number of cores is vast.
You won’t see anything with the i9 but a lighter wallet.

I would wait on the video card until next year. Unless you do a ton of ray tracing gaming the newer cards aren’t significantly better than the 2080 Super unless you pay over $1000.
I think 64GB of DDR5 is a better investment today and then when the new batch of cards comes in 2024 you can make a better upgrade then.

2 Likes
8

I will be getting the I7-13700. Just makes more sense in the end. I should have jumped on the I9-13900k in July. Amazon was selling them for $400 USD.

Graphics wise, I think ill wait, I have a 4080 and a 4070TI on a amazon wish list. Maybe a good deal will pop up around thanksgiving.

1 Like
9

I think the 4070Ti is a good card as far as what it offers, it’s just vastly overpriced.

3 Likes