Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?
-
So I am buying a new computer.
Specs intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super.- 96gb ram. Is this pc good enough for 4k bms?
-
Yes, I have a 12900K and a 3090 and run at 4K with zero issues. Though I’m splitting time between that and VR.
-
@m1tp2king maybe overkill, unless your goal is 120hz 4k, in which case it sounds about right
-
Well, it is way overkill for BMS, I have a 14600 with 64GB RAM and a 4070 ti card. I have three 32"1440p screens (7680x1440 pixels) and 4 other small screens.
I always have AIDA64 on a separate screen to show the actual usage and temperatures. My pc is already overkill as I always see that both RAM and video memory are only partly used. 32 GB RAM and 8GB would be more than sufficient (DCS uses more of the memory). Also both the CPU and the GPU are under 100% utilization. BMS itself show a steady 165fps rate on the three main screens.
-
Just did a quick test to see the actual values. The values in the circles are the temperatures. The bars below show the utilization in % and MB.
(Top left GPU 74% means that fans spin at 74%)
-
@SN00PY because of spin-waiting and asymmetric multithreading, and hyperthreading, and now asymmetric cores, the CPU-util metric is mostly meaningless for games on modern chips. the percentage is always going to represent a few P-cores pegged at 100% (doing work then spin-waiting) and the rest near zero… whatever %age that adds up to be for your chip.
also, almost every tool out there reports GPU-util as a direct function of clock-speed … so it is also somewhat meaningless – the nvidia driver tends to adjust clock speed to target 60% util (render-time relative to recent frame-pacing) leaving headroom for sudden spikes, eg. explosions or sudden scene-changes
but with those caveats out of the way … your conclusions are all correct.
-
@m1tp2king said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
So I am buying a new computer.
Specs intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super.- 96gb ram. Is this pc good enough for 4k bms?
More than good enough, but depends on what exactly you are looking for. Consistent 30fps? Sure. 60fps? Might be getting close to that on worse-case day 1 campaign with bad weather. 120fps? Might not be a guarantee 100% of the time. However, if you’re not one of those that have the FPS counter up all the time, you should be having a smooth experience.
Also, what’s with the 96GB RAM?
-
@m1tp2king Since the i9-14900k single core speed is only about 7% fadter than the i7-13700k, is a heat and power hungry monster and you wont use the majority of those cores ever or be able to upgrade the cpu in the future without a new motherboard, so not even future proofing, then yes IMHO Id say it seems like a massive overkill of spending for BMS in 4k. Also 96 gb RAM seems like an even worse waste of money for BMS since it has nothing to do with helping you with 4k and BMS can’t use that much anyway. Wondering why you didn’t pick the 4090 with double the video memory of the 4070ti which is the one thing that might help you a bit more with 4k. Or for VR. Unless you are using this configuration for other things like AI or image processing or something like that, its way over the top as you could spent much less money for pretty similar results in BMS. Maybe better would be i7-13700k, 64 gb ram 4070ti. Or wait until Q3 or Q4 for the LGA 1851 socket and have cpu upgrade possibilities on that board in future. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am considering upgrading for BMS also.
-
The other thing to think about is the eventual 4.38 release, Like others have mentioned, I would redirect some of the spend on the RAM into the GPU. E.g. 4080 Super.
-
@Icarus said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
single core speed is only about 7% fadter than the i7-13700k,
Is it even just about the core speed? I presume you mean “clock” speed? Does IPC (instructions per cycle?) have a factor to do with it as well? It’s been a few years and I could be mis-remembering, but the battle between AMD and Intel had AMD down on clock speed but more IPC and thus could do productivity tasks faster than an Intel with a higher clock speed. Does that mean AMD can do calculations faster and thus an AMD CPU would be less of a potential bottleneck in a system build?
-
@Atlas i9-14900k is only 7% faster than i7-13700k. Intel made few gains in 14000 series over the 13000 series likely due to heat and the i9-14900k gets pretty damn hot. 14000 is end of the line for that architecture. I don’t follow the AMD stuff but yes AMD made big challenge to Intel.
-
@Icarus so your telling me to avoid i9. Go with the i7 and nvidia 4080 super.
That works perfectly fine for me. Looking to spend around £2800. Is that a good price for the uk? -
@Icarus
I think this was around the 12000 series where AMD was a clear winner in productivity tasks. Not kept up with the “battle” since then. But my question is — does IPC matter and at which point does clock speed negate any IPC advantage?@m1tp2king said in Intel i7 14700K + nvidia 4070ti super 4K?:
@Icarus so your telling me to avoid i9. Go with the i7 and nvidia 4080 super.
I don’t think he’s telling you one thing or another, just saying that you probably won’t see a difference between the two in terms of performance. A simpler way of putting it is that a single-core CPU running at, say, 4GHz will be out-performed by a quad-core CPU running at 4GHz simply because the PC will be able to utilise the other cores for other background processes. However, this does not mean that a 2GHz quad-core will out-perform the 4GHz single-core… this does not also mean that a 8-core 4GHz CPU will perform 2x better than a 4-core 4GHz CPU.
In most cases, single-core speed is still important because not many programs are multi-threaded and even those that are MT doesn’t mean they are MT’d properly, so although tasks can be assigned to other cores, if one core struggles with its task, the other cores will still end up waiting on that core before any more computing can be done.
Then there’s the issue of power consumption and heat — where you might need a really beefy cooler which may not work if you’re looking at a small form factor build… etc…
That works perfectly fine for me. Looking to spend around £2800. Is that a good price for the uk?
Depends on what you’re getting for that price. Again, what’s up with the 96GB RAM?? Was that a typo?
A 4080 Super is around £1,100, an i7 14700K is £400, 64GB DDR5 5600 is around £220, so where is that other £1,100 going?
-
@Atlas they’re making 48 Gb sticks now
-
@airtex2019
Still, what is up with that? Are programs really using that much RAM nowadays? Since when was 32GB or even 64GB not enough?As for his build, bumping up from 64GB to 96GB will be another £70-£100, so that still leaves out £1,000. Unless it’s a full system including monitors and such?
-
@Atlas no it’s pretty crazy, for an individual desktop system – unless you’re doing video editing … or big-data analysis … training ML models, that sort of thing
but people doing those things, know exactly how much ram they need (answer: as much as they can get!) and won’t ever ask.
-
Capacity of that RAM means nothing without a speed rating. What is the CAS latency and what are the memory timings?
Best RAM is the fastest, lowest latency sticks you can afford in the capacity you require which are also present on the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors List) of the motherboard you are planning to use them in.
I can’t imagine many workflows that would make use of 96GB of memory - wasn’t stated above yet why so high on RAM - but speed should never be sacrificed for higher capacity memory.
-
I don’t bother counting FPS but I’m running a 13600K and an NDVIDIA 2060 and it’s butter smooth at 4K in every campaign I’ve run thus far. You may be engaging in overkill! As is 96mb ram. I run 32 on this machine and have yet to encounter any issues with… well… anything really, and it’s my work machine…
-
@m1tp2king I’m pointing you in a direction for you to do your homework before you buy and see if you find the same.
-
@Atlas If IPC is high due to multicore and virtual cores, it won’t help with most games or sims. It obviously doesn’t do much for the i9-14900k if its only around 7% faster than the i7-13700k.