i9-9900K vs i9-9920X; 32 vs 64 GB RAM?

[RGS 1]

Hi all,

Looking for some advice on a new system and wondering which of the two above processors to build it around.

My primary uses:

• Flight sim (P3D), obviously...
• Games
• 3ds Max (primarily model creation, but also rendering)
• Photoshop
• 4K

All of the above are of roughly equal importance and are kind of linked, as I'm a developer. In addition, I'd like to add video editing, though that's of less importance right now. I do work with very large files and often have multiple apps open (Max and Photoshop for e.g.).

My intention is to pair the system with an RTX 2080 Ti. Whilst expensive, it does deliver the goods at 4K.

A few further points to bear in mind:

• This is my primary work machine and will see heavy usage for years to come
• I do not want to have to upgrade the processor/motherboard, but am OK with mid-life GPU + RAM upgrades (but ideally would not want to for at least 3 years)
• I will not be overclocking
• I will only ever be running a single graphics card
• System must be Intel/nVidia and be as future-proof as possible (I tend to stick with a machine for much longer than most, rather than frequent upgrades, beyond the graphics card) 
• Price differential between the two systems is currently around £700-800, which is considerable (roughly £2,500 vs £3,200 for the entire rig, minus display)

As I understand it the 9900K is faster at 5 GHz vs 4.5, but the 9920X has half as many cores again (12 vs 8) + supports quad channel memory, though not sure how important that is in terms of real world usage however.

Benchmarks seem to show the 9900K producing higher framerates for games at lower resolutions (due to the higher clocks), but things flatten out at 4K. With that in mind, I'm tempted towards the 12 core part which ought to help with work (rendering if little else) and potentially be more future-proof as apps eventually embrace higher core counts (though a very slow process, if the past few years are anything to go by). On the other hand, 5 vs 4.5 GHz is a considerable margin in terms of raw speed,and those 4K figures may shift in the direction of the 9900K as games become more demanding.

The 32 vs 64 GB RAM question is more to do with future-proofing. 32 is ample for now, work-wise, but in the past I've been burnt with RAM becoming discontinued and/or insanely expensive, so am considering just going the whole hog now. Would be interested to hear from others, particularly with regards to large files in Photoshop, heavy Max usage and video editing. I don't imagine flight sims/games will be taking advantage of over 32 GB for some time, though maybe 4+ years from now, who knows?

Thanks in advance for the help.

Cheers!

Edited February 25, 2019 by RGS

[westman 257]

Hi 

9900k if you dont intend to Overclock, the 7920X is not a good one for P3D if not you overclock even a treadripper is faster in the sim.

 

[RGS 1]

4 minutes ago, westman said:

Hi 

9900k if you dont intend to Overclock, the 7920X is not a good one for P3D if not you overclock even a treadripper is faster in the sim.

 

Thanks for the reply, Westman.

Do you happen to know if that's the case at 4K as well?

The 9920X is a slight step up from the 7920X, but I imagine not enough to make a significant difference. If I was just considering a machine for flight sim/gaming with a thought to changing it every 2-4 years I'd just go with the 9900K + 32 GB RAM and be done with it, but as I have to take into account the other uses for the system, namely Max and Photoshop and the fact that I'll be sticking with it far beyond that time frame (graphics card upgrades aside) things become less obvious.

Totally get that right now the 9900K is the best gaming processor available; my dilemma however is, is it significantly faster than the 9920X in flight sims/games, and in particular at 4K (plus will that continue to be the case in the years ahead); also how much of an advantage would the additional 4 cores and quad channel memory give me regarding the work side of things? In some ways I suspect that the higher clock speeds of the 9900K may actually make it the faster of the two in Max and Photoshop (barring rendering), but not 100% on that front. As generally speaking I'm not rendering video from Max (only stills, lighting + normal map bakes), rendering time isn't as important a consideration as it might otherwise be. 

The 9900K is tempting, as the far cheaper option; my concern is whether it will it last as well as the 12 core part in the long run?

I don't want to overclock as 1: I don't know what I'm doing 😉, 2: I need stability and don't want to spend a lot of time troubleshooting etc. and 3: component longevity is important to me.

Sorry for the long-ish posts. Thanks for the feedback.

[westman 257]

35 minutes ago, RGS said:

Thanks for the reply, Westman.

Do you happen to know if that's the case at 4K as well?

The 9920X is a slight step up from the 7920X, but I imagine not enough to make a significant difference. If I was just considering a machine for flight sim/gaming with a thought to changing it every 2-4 years I'd just go with the 9900K + 32 GB RAM and be done with it, but as I have to take into account the other uses for the system, namely Max and Photoshop and the fact that I'll be sticking with it far beyond that time frame (graphics card upgrades aside) things become less obvious.

Totally get that right now the 9900K is the best gaming processor available; my dilemma however is, is it significantly faster than the 9920X in flight sims/games, and in particular at 4K (plus will that continue to be the case in the years ahead); also how much of an advantage would the additional 4 cores and quad channel memory give me regarding the work side of things? In some ways I suspect that the higher clock speeds of the 9900K may actually make it the faster of the two in Max and Photoshop (barring rendering), but not 100% on that front. As generally speaking I'm not rendering video from Max (only stills, lighting + normal map bakes), rendering time isn't as important a consideration as it might otherwise be. 

The 9900K is tempting, as the far cheaper option; my concern is whether it will it last as well as the 12 core part in the long run?

I don't want to overclock as 1: I don't know what I'm doing 😉, 2: I need stability and don't want to spend a lot of time troubleshooting etc. and 3: component longevity is important to me.

Sorry for the long-ish posts. Thanks for the feedback.

I run my 7920x at 5.1 10 cores 4k, tested 4.6ghz 12c/24t (ht on) huge difference in 4k in smothness very easy to get stutters lf run the cpu from 4.7ghz and down to 4.0ghz

[RGS 1]

Wow, that's a pretty substantial OC. I think the 9900K can run 2 cores at 5 GHz, with all 8 at 4.7.

Is the sim (P3D) making use of those extra cores on your 7920X?

How do you find the processor outside of flight sim/gaming?

Thanks.

[westman 257]

54 minutes ago, RGS said:

Wow, that's a pretty substantial OC. I think the 9900K can run 2 cores at 5 GHz, with all 8 at 4.7.

Is the sim (P3D) making use of those extra cores on your 7920X?

How do you find the processor outside of flight sim/gaming?

Thanks.

i have 3-4 different saved Bios profiles use mostly 2 of them one for sim P3D 10cores enabled HT off 5.1ghz all cores synced it run P3D very nice the second profile is for allday use 4.6ghz 1all 12 all cores synced HT on very fast in multitreaded apps